You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.

I'm from Kansas. My family has hunted for years. I own over 50 firearms myself. We have over 6000 acres of land that people hunt on every year. We have hunting lodges that house hundreds of hunters every season that come to hunt game. In the last 30 years, not a single hunter has ever come to hunt game and brought an AR-15 as their weapon of choice. None of them has ever brought a magazine that holds 30 rounds.

To pretend that every tom dick and harry needs an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is just stupid. If your government wanted to destroy you, they will do it from 50,000 feet in the sky with unmanned drones. Your stupid little AR-15 will do nothing to stop it you fat slob.

aegean:Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

It's also not about self defense, over throwing the federal government, or some other ridiculous horseshiat. But that doesn't stop the Gun Lobby from repeating that and the hunting garbage over and over and over again. But then the NRA only gives a damn about selling guns and gun accessories, and nothing else, and they will do and say anything to push that agenda...logic or classrooms full of dead children be damned.

One of my pets is diabetic. In order to purchase the tiny ass syringes needed to administer her 2 insulin shots per day, I have to show 2 forms of ID and play 20 questions at the drug store, every goddamn time...meanwhile I can walk into any gunshow in the country and buy as big an arsenal as I can afford, no ID, no questions asked.

If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the "assault weapon" and "high capacity" ban, they MUST address these questions:- Why ban cosmetic features?- Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?- Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?- Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?- How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)?- How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the ban's expiration?And most importantly:After a decade of failure, why assume that the bans will reduce violent crime THIS time around?

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant."

I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable. I own a few firearms. I would never turn them on another human being or animal, not even in self defense (okay, maybe an animal in self defense).

Is there anything inherently wrong with chucking 900 rounds of lead downrange in a controlled environment if that's what you want to do? I think it's incredibly silly, but it's a kind of neat engineering challenge.

The problem with firearms is one of externalities. Firearms create an attractive nuisance- we are all measurably less safe because firearms exist and are common in the US. Between accidents, outlier incidents like mass shootings (which, by population, are exceedingly rare), and crime (which usually doesn't involve legally owned firearms, which makes new laws on the subject difficult).

So let's apply economics to the problem: each firearm carries with it a risk that it is used in a negative fashion. Each negative application carries with it a social cost- deaths, medical bills, public fear, and so on. This gives us a strategy for attacking the problem in a fashion far more nuanced than "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"

A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable- an assessment at the point of purchase for the total social costs of allowing firearms to be owned. It could be adjusted based on its ability to enact costs- high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply. Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

This allows us to restrict access to firearms without taking active steps to ban anything, it allows us to evaluate our measures based on measurable economic values, it creates a new class of charge to be brought against those who use firearms illegally. It addresses things in terms of externalities.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

I don't own any of the AR15 descendants, but I'd like to. Granted, that's because I'd prefer to go to the range and become more proficient with my service weapon. Greater proficiency/accuracy reduces the chance of casualties (both civilian and military).

This bump thing... while it works... does not do anything for accuracy, that's for sure. Honestly, I think it is a mediocre product that is a plastic penis enlargement alternative. Autos are great for suppression, but honestly not very good for a "sole gunman" scenario. Especially the AR platform which will burn up the barrel something awful.

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant and truly believe I'll be Rambo"

Meh, they've had modifications that do this for years. I had a Hellfire for my MAK-90, back in the early '90s, that did the same thing...just worked a little differently. So, all you pants-wetters out there can stop urinating on yourself, this technology has been readily and legally available for 20 years.

I have two of them. They work great. (one on an AR15, one on an AK74) And they've been out for about a year now. But unless Uncle Sam is providing the ammo--they're too expensive to use all day at the range. Fortunately, there's a little lever you can turn and easily put it back into single shot mode.

I hate these threads. I won't echo the "cars, hammers, baseball bats, etc." argument because its already been beaten to death. What I'd like to know from the ones here that want round up all the guns is how are you going to do it? There are simply not enough police in the U.S. to do a house-to-house search, even with the info from the 4473s. The military? Posse Comitatus, and Obama can't just sign an executive order suspending it. If he did, he might find that the DoD won't obey a clearly illegal order, and Congress won't repeal it for this.There are enough gun laws already. The problem is they aren't properly enforced as it is. The real problem is mental health monitoring. All of those shooters raised red flags for months or years prior to their acts, yet no one had the stones to do anything because they were more afraid of being sued. The only winners in this game are going to be the lawyers.

Fallacy: The second amendment is specifically designed so that if the government does something you don't agree with, you can kill military/government agents and protect your own rights.

Truth: Amendment II was designed to ensure that a new country with no standing army would be able to defend itself, and to reassure the States that the Militia of one State would not be disarmed by other States' Militias.

no seriously. grow up. you're not clever and you contribute nothing. you just beavis and butthead the thread with "dick...heh heh heh.."

Ignore me.

Censorship is a liberal ideal, here in the free world we don't silence those we don't agree with.

No, it really isn't. Anti-gun people just aren't liberal. I don't know why they should get that liberal title. It's like most conservatives and their cry for fiscal conservatism, they take the bullsh*t all the way to the bank.

Authoritarians just want to control people, gays, guns, soda, tobacco, marijuana, whatever, that's what they do. And they are on both sides of our horribly defined whateverthehellwehave.

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

Is this sarcasm? I'm not really pro or anti-gun, more gun-neutral, but the pro-2nd amendment folks always seem much more intelligent and articulate in these threads, at least in relation to firearms and the law. The anti-gun people constantly use numerous logical fallacies and misleading terminology to make their points. They may be more education overall (who the fark knows) but it certainly isn't demonstrated by their participation in gun threads.

The problem is that gun lovers are only educated about guns. They almost literally know nothing beyond this topic.

Well you certainly didn't pull this little factoid out of your ass.

If you are enamored by something as crude and simplistic as a gun, it's safe to say you probably have never had to write anything in a Blue Book.

And even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're just honestly misunderstanding an 18th century idiom, you're simply fabricating the "lots" part of your "lots of regulations".

Quit inserting what you wished the 2nd Amendment said and just accept what it really says.

That doesn't mean any old weapon that any old individual can carry.

Actually, it does. When the British marched on Concord to seize weapons possessed by the colonists, they went to seize artillery, not just muskets and high capacity powder horns with a capacity of more than ten (10) charges.

I'm sorry this makes you feel uncomfortable. Feel free to lobby your representatives and Senators to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with something you think is more appropriate. It's a living document and it's entirely within your rights to work for a new Amendment.

/Unless you're one of the dumbasses that believes our founders believed that stinger missiles, rpgs, and tactical nukes in everyone's home were what our founders intended by a "well regulated militia".

They couldn't have foreseen WMD, so it's reasonable to argue that they didn't intend individuals to possess nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. I make that argument myself, and think individuals shouldn't be permitted to possess them. They have no purpose on home soil beyond use as terror weapons and consequently are of no use in defense or resistance to a tyrannical government.

They absolutely DID intend that the people be armed with weapons commensurate with the military weapons available in the day, and absolutely DID expect that weapon technology would advance with time. In 2013, this includes AR-15 style rifles with normal capacity magazines.

Again, don't pretend that the 2nd Amendment says something it doesn't. The letter and spirit of it is obviously an well armed citizenry.

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste:In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.

Nope, that's what anti-gun people project onto gun owners. And it's somewhat due to ignorance, but mainly it's due to wanting to demonize someone they don't agree with. Kind of like how I think people like you are pants-wetters. You know, the kind of people that piss all over themselves in abject terror when presented with a piece of technology, that's been around for at least 20 years that I know of, because they think it's scary.

But I know that isn't accurate of all anti-gun people, but it is true about some of them. Just like some gun owners have Rambo/Dirty Harry fantasies, but most don't.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.

Wait, California has low property values and industry? Oh, you mean the red parts of the state? Yeah, I guess the red areas drag down the blue.

What I don't understand is, had Adam Lanza just decided to run over a bunch of kids at the crosswalk, there'd be no talks of banning cars. Guns are killing machines in irresponsible hands, and cars are killing machines in irresponsible hands. The logic that we must remove all guns, or even some guns, escapes me. People own different guns because, well, for the same reason I have a minivan and a sedan in my driveway.

Oh yeah! I'm sure that's what all 100,000 of the fat ass 55 year old slobs standing in line for 4 hours last week at Cabelas were planning on doing with their AR-15s when they got them. I'm sure they were deeply concerned about the feral hog population in Georgia and how those hogs were threatening their very livelihoods in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas. I'm sure all of them already booked their flights to Georgia to hunt down this horrible hog menace that can be stopped by no other means than by a bunch of fat assed slobs from out-of-state wearing camo pretending they are John Rambo while hunting from their hoverounds.

Get real.

The solution to feral hogs doesn't need a bunch of overweight overaged insane retards with 100 round magazines in Kansas.

Hyperbole much? I never said that this was the only reason people buy AR-15s, just that there ARE legitimate uses of them in the animal control/sporting world, which you (and many igorant in the media) have claimed is false. For the record, hogs are a HUGE problem throughout the southeast US, including Texas and Oklahoma, not just Georgia.

Exactly... I'm all for gun rights, but if someone is the kind of person who looks forward to shooting people, or feels tempted or lured to do so merely because they have a gun, I'll be the first person to say that they should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. That's some psychopathic shiat and one of the most disturbing examples of psychological projection that I've ever read here.

Don't like that, repeal the Amendment. Don't pretend it says something it doesn't.

I don't understand why gun control advocates always fixate on hunting as the gun-related activity they're OK with. Last I looked, deer or ducks aren't mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

I don't understand why they won't just say this. They'll try all these sneaky semantic stuff to try to legislate guns away, but they will never just come out and say, "The Second Amendment needs to be repealed and replaced by a milder set of rights," or anything like that, when that's really the simplest way to achieve what most of them want.

There's no crime or dishonor in wanting the change the Constitution. It's just unpopular because people think it's a holy scroll of some kind.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.

You are high. The red states currently take far more money from the federal government than they put in. The blue states pay for your welfare in Louisana, Missippia, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Red states are all takers, sipping off the federal teat to stay alive.

No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.

They're excellent for taking down a whole herd of feral hogs though, so I don't think they're quite as useless as you make out.

simkatu:To pretend that every tom dick and harry needs an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is just stupid. If your government wanted to destroy you, they will do it from 50,000 feet in the sky with unmanned drones. Your stupid little AR-15 will do nothing to stop it you fat slob.

But imagine the fun of 100 ketchup-filled barbie dolls and a high-speed video camera....

Stratohead:aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

It's also not about self defense, over throwing the federal government, or some other ridiculous horseshiat. But that doesn't stop the Gun Lobby from repeating that and the hunting garbage over and over and over again. But then the NRA only gives a damn about selling guns and gun accessories, and nothing else, and they will do and say anything to push that agenda...logic or classrooms full of dead children be damned.

One of my pets is diabetic. In order to purchase the tiny ass syringes needed to administer her 2 insulin shots per day, I have to show 2 forms of ID and play 20 questions at the drug store, every goddamn time...meanwhile I can walk into any gunshow in the country and buy as big an arsenal as I can afford, no ID, no questions asked.

Priorities...what the fark are those?

Being that prescription drug abuse is an exponentially more fatal and epidemic problem than gun violence, I'd say it's ok.

Aw man really? Well why the hell not? I'm just antsy for the next step forward in personal weapon technology. And no strapping a computer to a bullet firing gun doesn't count. I'm talking lasers or electromagnetic manipulation or deatomization or something we don't even have words for yet.

Well we have ray weapons. The navy has laser guns that can blow a missile in flight. But the reason only the navy has that is because only the nave has floating multi-ton weapons platforms with nuclear reactors generating infinite electricity. Scaled up, rays work.

But anything you can carry? It's too little oomph to be effective. The best you can do is a laser that break optics.

p51d007:Here is an idea for you lib gun haters out there.We divide off the country, put everyone that hates guns, wants them banned onone side of the country. Put the gun lovers on the other side. Then erect a 100 FOOTwall. 50 feet high, and 50 feet deep. NO ONE is allowed to move from one side orthe other. Then, in a few years we see how many people on the gun lovers side end updead from "bad guys", versus how many anti gun lovers are still alive, have any of theirproperty etc. In a few years, the pro gun lovers can then come tear down the wall, andhave the fun of shooting up the bad guys on the anti gun lovers side, because, oncethe bad guys find out there is absolutely NO WEAPONS on the anti gun side, they willhave a field day raping and destroying everything on the anti gun side.

EXCEPT there is a big giant flaw in your hypothetical scenerio which you didn;t take into account. I would assume said bad guys are also 'gun lovers' therefore most if not all of them would be on your side. Have fun dealing with all the gun lovers who are members of MS-13, Bloods, Crips and your paranoid racist anti govermment militia types.I myself am not anti gun but in your 'experiment' I think I would rather go to the no-gun side of the fence since as you said no one from each side can cross over.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

Here we have lucked out and been granted a glimpse into the mind of the ever-petulant internet gun jockey. When presented with a clearly juvenile but ultimately harmless jab at the "stereotypical gun owner"'s penis size he does not ignore. He does not resort to internet tough guy speak (initially at least). He immediately jumps into a diatribe about cocks in an attempt - in his mind - to 1) showcase the perceived obsession with male genitalia that gun control advocates display and 2) hopes to belittle the offending party by implying that they have a predilection to penis, hoping this will be taken as a slight to their manhood. What the internet gun jockey fails to realize is that in his own post he has mentioned penis far more than the initial offender ever did and at the same time he has sunk to a level of debate equivalent to, "No you're gay!" In short, the internet gun jockey has not only embarrassed himself to anyone other than those who would react upon hearing his speech in a manner not unlike, "You tell um Skeeter!" but also has not succeeded in enlarging the size of his microphallus. And the sad March of the Derp continues with us only able to be witnesses.

p51d007:We divide off the country, put everyone that hates guns, wants them banned onone side of the country.

Why not just split off the states that have the toughest gun control laws now rather than dividing it 50/50? With the exception of Texas, you'll have just made a third world nation with an economy smaller than Mexico's. But I'm sure it's just coincidence those lib states have higher average income, property values, industry, education level, etc...

Ya know, making up blatant and easily disproven lies just makes all your other arguments look weaker. Automobile insurance regularly pays out for your illegal acts If you hit and injure someone driving drunk, it is common for you insurance to pay and many states require you to carry such liability insurance. Fanatical liars like you are going to lose the gun rights debate faster than any of the usual suspects on the left everyone has already tuned out - we know their crazy, but you sound crazy and stupid. Do we really want you armed?

Uh-huh. Rant away.

There are some cases where an insurer must pay out when an illegal act was in action. They are not intentionally criminal cases -- things like DUI aren't considered intentionally criminal. If you intentionally murder someone with your car, the insurer won't take on the liability, any more than they'd pay you for torching your own house. Insurers will never accept the liability for armed robbery injuries or gang violence under a firearms liability insurance program.

They may pay out for shooting your firearm while drunk and accidentally hurting someone. They won't pay out if you just shoot someone.

Maybe I've just spent too much time in these threads. But I need to know - is it bad if, when someone attempts to make a correlation between any particular thing and someone's genital size, I feel a pressing need to punch that person in the face? It's gotten as bad as Obama hatred or people who studman69 and are serious about it (especially if it's the wrong person).

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.

Yet when we have dozens of people maybe abusing cash assistance from welfare out of 200 million everyone wants to change the system.

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant."

They would no longer be anti-gun people if they would take the time to learn about the guns that they are so very afraid of, the existing gun laws, and the blah weapons sparse appearance in violent crime.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

It's not complicated: The more firepower you need, the smaller your penis is. Those of us with giant wangs care less about guns than shtupping.

Well, you'll empty a 30 round magazine in about 2 seconds. With ammo prices you could blow $50 in ammo in less than a minute. If I'm blowing that much money for that little bit of fun time... my money won't be the only thing getting blown.

fusillade762:You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Insurance is only required when you are driving on public roads. You're generally free to go without it when driving on private property, unless you have a loan/lease and the titleholder requires it.

The same standard for firearms would require safety and proficiency testing in addition to carrying insurance when carrying a loaded firearm in public. But you could transport your unloaded firearm across public property and discharge it on private property sans testing or insurance. As long as the insurance and testing requirements were sane, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But there are a few states I wouldn't trust to keep such things sane.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

It's easy to figure out. We use the Lenny Scale.

If you are exactly like me -- that is, if you are me -- you have precisely the perfectly sized penis. It is so large that it satisfies all women without appearing to be the result of plastic surgery or Satanic pacts. Therefore, everything I own represents that perfect penis.

If you own something slightly more macho than what I have, it is because your penis is too small.

If you own something slightly less macho than what I have, it is because you are gay.

These are not mutually exclusive. You can be both gay and have a small penis, depending on your consumer choices. For example, you own both a 4x4 3/4-ton pick-up AND a Mazda Miata.